delta rmp steering committee meeting july 28, 2017 10:00 am - … · 2017-07-20 · delta rmp...

Delta RMP Steering Committee Meeting July 28, 2017 10:00 am - 4:00 pm

Location Central Valley Regional Water Board, 11020 Sun Center Drive #200, Rancho Cordova CA

Remote Access Call-in: 415.594.5500, Access Code: 238-626-034#

Online: https://join.me/sfei-conf-cw2 (Login not required. Be sure to type your name and click “Join” on the start page.)

Agenda

1 Introductions and Review Agenda Introduce TAC and SC members, establish quorum, and explain goals of the meeting

10:00 Brock Bernstein

2

Decision: Approve Meeting Summary from January 26, 2017 and Confirm/Set Next Meeting Dates

Desired outcomes: ● Approve meeting summary● Confirm next meeting date for joint

meeting of the SC & TAC:October 24, 2017Park Tower Building, 2nd Floor ConferenceRoom, 980 Ninth Street, Sacramento, CA

● Select a date for winter SC meeting:Check your calendar for early January 2018

Draft Summary of May 3, 2017 SC Meeting*

RMP Decision Record (Excel Spreadsheet)

10:05 Brock Bernstein

3

Information: Financial Update The Financial Update memo summarizes the balance of budgeted and reserved RMP funds as well as the status of revenue received.

Desired outcomes: ● Informed committee

Financial Update Memo

10:10 Matt Heberger

4

Information: Financial Subcommittee Report The Financial Subcommittee will report out on their findings and recommendations.

Desired outcomes: ● Informed committee

10:20 Dalia Fadl

Delta RMP Steering Committee Meeting July 28, 2017 Agenda Package,

https://join.me/sfei-conf-cw2

https://join.me/sfei-conf-cw2

5

Discussion: TAC Update Update from the June 13, 2017 meeting. Discussion of a proposed “decision grid” or a scorecard for evaluating proposed monitoring projects.

Desired outcome: • Guidance to the TAC on decision grid to

be used in evaluating monitoring propoosals

Draft TAC Meeting Summary from June 13, 2017 Meeting*

Draft “Decision Grid”

10:30 – 11:30 Joe Domagalski, Brian Laurenson

6

Information: Year 1 Current Use Pesticides Data Report. This ASC report covers the first year of pesticides and toxicity data collected, and has been reviewed by the Pesticides Subcommittee and the Technical Advisory Committee.

Desired outcome: • Inform SC that the draft report has been

finalized• The SC will be asked to approve and

publish the report at its next meeting

Draft FY15/16 Current Use Pesticides Data Report* 11:30 – 12:00

Matt Heberger

Lunch 12:00 – 1:00

7

Discussion: The Delta RMP’s approach to CECs The Water Board is developing a statewide strategy to address Constituents of Emerging Concern (CECs) in Aquatic Ecosystems; the Delta RMP is well-positioned to fund special projects for CEC monitoring through SEP funding.

Desired outcome: • Inform the SC of recent developments related

to CECs.• Decide on a process for planning CEC special

projects

1:00 – 1:30 Adam Laputz Debbie Webster

8

Discussion: Process and timeline for setting Delta RMP fees

Desired outcome: ● Agreement on the process and timeline

Memo: Proposed process and timeline for setting Delta RMP fees

1:30 – 2:30 Matt Heberger, Adam Laputz

9

Decision: Current Use Pesticides Interpretive Report Revised Scope

Desired outcome: • SC approval of the revised scope and

budget• Please express any major concerns now or

in writing within 2 weeks

Revised scope 2:30 – 3:30 Matt Heberger, Thomas Jabusch


10

Information: Status of RMP Deliverables and Action Items

Desired outcomes: ● Informed committee regarding the status

of Delta RMP deliverables. ● Confirmation of action items from this

meeting ● Approval of the Delta RMP factsheet

Delta RMP Stoplight Reports

Draft Delta RMP Factsheet*

3:30 - 3:45 Matt Heberger

11 Plan Agenda Items for Next Meeting See “Parking Lot” of potential future agenda items below.

3:45 – 4:00 Brock Bernstein

Adjourn 4:00

Parking Lot • Discuss the Final Report by the Independent Review Panel to be delivered on or around July 27, 2017 (at

the joint SC/TAC meeting on October 24, 2017)?

• Conduct a “Plus/Delta” on the External Review Process. What went right? What could be done better nexttime?

• Discuss the Delta RMP’s approach to toxicity – going beyond the standard “reproduction, growth,survival” endpoints and using newer methods which would show more subtle effects of a chemical(suggested by co-chair).

• Discuss fees paid by MS4 Phase 2 participants – how to set fees that are fair and equitable.

• Presentation about the Year 1 Current Use Pesticides Data Report

• Presentation by USGS scientists on the poster abstract they submitted for the October 10–11, 2017 Stateof the Estuaries Conference in Oakland, covering the FY15/16 Current Use Pesticides data.

• Discuss adding additional representatives to the Steering Committee, i.e. representing Delta ScienceProgram, dredgers, Army Corps of Engineers?

• Presentation by SFEI authors of the 2016 report A Delta Renewed.

• Presentation by USGS CWSC scientists on second proposal submitted to the nutrient sub-committee(shallow water mapping) that was not selected for funding in FY17/18. Approve as a possible SEP-fundedproject?

• Discuss how the Delta RMP will be interacting with the Delta Science Program, especially as it regards thefindings of the recent report State of Bay-Delta Science, 2016, which concerns us directly

• Review and update Delta RMP Charter (at the joint SC/TAC meeting on October 24, 2017)?

• Other suggestions for presentations or items to discuss or decide?


* Draft reports and meeting summaries distributed only to Steering Committee members.

Meeting Materials for Item 3

Delta RMP Steering Committee Meeting July 28, 2017 Agenda Package, Page 11

DATE: July 13, 2017

TO: Delta RMP Steering Committee

THROUGH: Delta RMP Finance Committee

FROM: Matthew Heberger, Program Manager, Aquatic Science Center

RE: Summary of Delta RMP Financials – period ending May 31, 2017

This memorandum provides an update of budgets and expenses for all open RMP budget years

(FY14/15, FY15/16 and FY16/17) as well as the balance of the Reserve Fund. All budget numbers

are current through May 31, 2017.

The most recent finance memo covered through the end of February 2017; this memo adds new

information for the months of March, April, and May 2017. Note that this memo does not cover the

month of June and therefore does not extend through the end of the fiscal year.

For the last few years, ASC has set up each fiscal year as a separate “project.” Some tasks were multi-year

projects, meaning that the planned and actual expenses extend beyond the end of the fiscal year. As

discussed, from now on, we will “close the books” on previous fiscal years and roll over any outstanding

planned expenses into the current fiscal year’s plan. This is intended to simplify reporting. The financial

memo for next quarter will close out FY16/17, therefore this memo will be the second-to last finance

memo to report each fiscal year separately.

Delta RMP FY14/15 Budget

We have continued to track certain tasks in the FY14/15 budget for which there are still unspent funds and work to be finished. The last remaining budget line was for the USGS subcontract for the High-

Frequency Nutrient Sensor Synthesis Report. The USGS completed the work several months ago, however,

they had not invoiced ASC until recently. In the last quarter, we received and paid the invoice, so we

can now close the Nutrient Synthesis task and close the books on FY14/15.

There is $725 remaining in the FY14/15 fund, which we can transfer to the Reserve Fund with Steering

Committee approval.

Figure 1 shows a comparison of expenses to budget by category. For more detailed information on

expenses by task and subtask, please refer to Table 1.



We continue to report expenses for tasks that were a part of the FY15/16 workplan and which are still

underway. Figure 2 shows a comparison of expenses to budget by category. For more detailed

information on expenses by task and subtask, please refer to Table 2.

About 88% of the budget has been spent ($804,197 of the $912,938 budget). The folllowing tasks are complete: 1–Program Management, 2–Governance, 3–Quality Assurance, 4–Communications, 5–Pathogens Year 1 Data Management, and 7–Nutrients Synthesis. Any unused funds in the budgets for these tasks will be unencumbered in September 2017.

For Task 6E, Current Use Pesticide Monitoring – Reporting, there is a single remaining deliverable: a data

report for the first year of pesticide/toxicity monitoring.

Task 8A, Monthly Pathogen Sampling, can now be closed. The final round of field data collection and

laboratory analyses for the pathogens was completed in March 2017 and all invoices paid. This task

finished with a surplus of $11,770. The reason for the surplus was that the monitoring plan contained a

number of contingencies for additional samples and replicates that did not end up being necessary. Task

8B, Pathogen Data management, is nearly complete and we expect it to be completed in June 2017 close

to its original budget.


Revenue

The FY16/17 workplan assumed revenues of $1,056,053. We have collected a total of $1,116,227 in the

form of direct payments or in-kind resources. (This sum reflects revenues received, and does not include

a single outstanding invoice that we are writing off as unlikely to be paid.) Revenue exceeded forecasts

because of three new participants who joined the program during the course of the year. Revenue

included $862,082 in revenues from contributions by RMP participants and $254,145 in in-kind services

in the SWAMP contract.

A single invoice went unpaid in FY16/17. The Discovery Bay POTW skipped making a payment in

FY16/17, despite having contributed $4,651 in FY15/16, and already contributing the same amount for

FY17/18. During FY16/17, the community had an interim city manager who had never heard of the Delta

RMP. At this point, we do not expect this year-old invoice for FY16/17 to be paid and are considering this

a write-off.

See Figure 4 and Table 3 for a breakdown of contributions for FY16/17.


Expenses

Planned expenses for FY16/17 are $1,060,530. This is based on the workplan with two amendments; a

total of $17,500 was allocated for ASC to participate in and coordinate the External Review. The budget

for Task 1C, External Review, was increased from $10,000 to $17,500 during this quarter after the Finance

Committee approved ASC’s request to transfer $7,500 from reserves to cover Phase 2 of the External

Review.

Approximately 54% of the budget, or $570,539 has been spent as of the end of May 2017. (This

memo covers the first 11 months, or 92%, of the year.)

Figure 3 shows a comparison of expenses to budget by category. For more detailed information on

budgets and expenses by line item, please refer to Table 4.

Expenses for certain tasks are running higher than budgeted. However, we expect to be able to make up

for cost overruns through savings in other tasks that we anticipate to be completed under budget.

Overall, we expect to finish the year within the program budget.

In the previous finance memo, we stated that Task 2B, TAC Meetings, is on track to end $14,400 over the

$64,800 budget. This was largely due to the number of technical subcommittee meetings held to discuss

monitoring proposals. We are still projecting this same cost overrun. This task is already $5,465 over

budget as of May, and there will be further staff time billed for running the June 2017 TAC meeting.

On the other hand, we expect to finish Task 2A, Steering Committee Meetings, about $2,000 under the

budget of $51,300. We also anticipate a small surplus in Task 1A, Program Planning. Further, Task 3B,

Technical Oversight and Coordination, was budgeted at $15,000, but less than half the funds have been

spent. Savings on these tasks will allow us to finish the year at or close to the budget overall despite the

cost overruns in Task 2B.

Reserve Fund

Table 5 shows a running list of deposits and withdrawals into the Reserve Fund. The current

balance of undesignated funds is $98,847. During the last quarter, the Finance Committee approved

ASC’s request to transfer $7,500 from reserves to cover Phase 2 of the External Review.

If expenses are in line with the budget, we will end FY16/17 with a surplus of $55,697. The surplus will

come from additional revenues that exceeded budgeted expenses. At the discretion of the Steering

Committee, this windfall can be added to the Reserve Fund, or used to support additional activities

during FY17/18.


No further withdrawals or deposits to the Reserve Fund are requested at this time.


Updates to Projected Revenue

Our revenue forecast for the current fiscal year has changed since we published the FY17/18 workplan.

The forecasted revenue from participants’ contributions has been updated from $787,782 to $897,256, a net

increase of $109,474. This is the result of two adjustments made to our forecast. First, the original

revenue projection for the City of Stockton's POTW was higher than the amount in their approval

letter so an adjustment had to be made. The results in a change to our revenue forecast of –$12,677.

However, this is offset by new revenues from new MS4 Phase 2 Permittees that are joining the Delta

RMP as participants in FY17/18. Additional revenue from the 13 new MS4 Phase 2 communities is

$143,200.

We have not included a potential $100,000 contribution by the State and Federal Contractors Water

Agency (SFCWA). The SFCWA Board has not yet approved a Delta RMP contribution for FY17/18 so

$100,000 in revenue is uncertain.

Finally, as there is no approved plan for toxicity monitoring, we are no longer including the in-kind

contribution of $205,600 from the SWAMP program via the Regional Board in our revenue forecast. If the

Steering Committee approves a plan for toxicity monitoring, these funds will become available and we

will add them back to our revenue forecast. If we do not use these funds in FY17/18, they can be rolled

over and used during the next 3 years.

Updates to Planned Expenses

At its May 3, 2017 meeting, the Steering Committee voted to approve a modified version of the proposed

workplan presented by ASC, excluding pesticides monitoring. We have revised the FY17/18 Workplan

document to reflect the SC decision, and this approved version has been published on the Delta RMP

website, http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/delta_water_quality/delta_regional_monitoring/

The planned expenses in the approved workplan total $863,165.

Money Left to Budget for FY17/18

The current expected revenue minus planned expenses is equal to $34,091. This amount can be budgeted

without tapping reserves. As noted, additional funds may become available, for example if SFCWA

contributes to the program in FY17/18. Furthermore, $205, 600 from SWAMP can also be budgeted but

they can only be used for toxicity monitoring.


http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/delta_water_quality/delta_regional_monitoring/

Figures and Tables

Figure 1 Delta RMP FY14/15 budget, showing budget and expenses (job to date, or JTD) from 1/1/2015

through 5/31/2017 by task.

Figure 2 Delta RMP FY15/16 budget, showing budget and expenses (job to date or JTD) from 7/1/2015

through 5/31/2017 by task.

$0 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000 $70,000 $80,000

Program Management

Governance

Communications

Data Management

Pesticide/Toxicity Monitoring

Pathogens Study (Year 1)

Nutrient Synthesis (Sensor Data)

Delta RMP FY14/15 Budget vs Expenses through 5/31/2017

Budget

No more billing to any task.

Net balance of $725 remaining.

$0 $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $500,000 $600,000

1. Program Management

2. Governance

3. Quality Assurance

4. Communications

5. Pathogen Study (Year 1)

6. CUP Monitoring

7. Nutrients Synthesis

8. Pathogen Study-Year 2


Budget

Expenses JTD

No more billing to these tasks,Net balance of $5,731 remaining.

Also closed. Balance of –$1,610.


Figure 3 Delta RMP FY16/17 budget, showing budget and expenses (job to date or JTD) from through 5/31/2016

by task.

Figure 4 Delta RMP revenue for FY16/17. Planned revenue versus revenue received to date.

89%

103%

50%

3%

32%

51%

70%

$0 $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $500,000 $600,000

1. Core Functions

2. Governance


4. Communications

6. CUP Monitoring


8. Mercury Study


Budget

Expenses JTD

$1,056,530

$862,082

$254,145

$0

$200,000

$400,000

$600,000

$800,000

$1,000,000

$1,200,000

Budgeted expenses Actual revenues

RB5 (inkind)

Received

Budget

$1,116,227


Table 1 Delta RMP FY14/15 Budget. Budget and expenses from 1/1/2015 to 5/31/2017 by line item.

Task Original Budget

Budget Adjustment

Final Budget

Expenses Through Last

Report

New Expenses Since Last

Report

Staff and Subcontractors

Billing Since Last Report

Work Summary For This Report

Total Expenses To

Date

Funds Remaining

Program Management $36,000

$36,000 $34,393 $0 task closed

$34,393 $1,607

Governance $21,000

$21,000 $23,600 $0 task closed

$23,600 -$2,600

Communications $0

$0 $0 $0 task closed

$0 $0

Data Management $0


$0 $0

Pesticide/Toxicity Monitoring

task closed

Logistics and Coordination

$11,000

$11,000 $9,932 $0 task closed

$9,932 $1,068

Field Sampling and Pesticide Lab

$41,000 -$41,000 $0 $0 $0 task closed Funds moved to FY15/16 budget

$0 $0

Toxicity/TIE Lab $0


$0 $0

Pathogens Study (Year 1) $72,000

$72,000 $71,350 $0 task closed

$71,350 $650

Nutrient Synthesis (Sensor Data)

$70,000

$70,000 $36,401 $33,599 USGS subcontract paid (now closed)

USGS invoiced ASC in May 2017 for work completed in 2016.

$70,000 $0

Total $251,000 -$41,000 $210,000 $175,675 $33,599

$209,275 $725


Task Subtask Budget

Expenses Through

Last Report

New Expenses Since Last

Report

Staff and Subcontractors Billing Since Last Report Work Summary for This Report

Total Expenses To Date

Funds Remaining

A. Program Planning $45,000 $44,832 $0 Closed $44,832 $168 B. Contract and Financial Management $47,000 $42,622 $0 Closed $42,622 $4,378

A. SC meetings $45,900 $45,678 $0 Closed $45,678 $222 B. TAC meetings $59,000 $59,755 $0 Closed $59,755 ($755)A. Quality Assurance System $10,000 $11,507 $0 Closed $11,507 ($1,507)B. Technical Oversight and Coordination $11,000 $10,056 $0 Closed $10,056 $944

A. Communications Plan $16,000 $16,000 $0 Closed $16,000 $0 B. Communications Product $4,000 $1,649 $0 Closed $1,649 $2,351

5. Pathogen Study (Year 1)

A. Data Management$10,000 $10,070 $0 Closed $10,070 ($70)

B. Pesticide Laboratory Work$189,208 $58,889 $130,331 Closed USGS invoiced ASC for work completed in 2016, closing out

this subtask. $189,220 ($12)

C. Toxicity Laboratory Work $287,830 $212,855 $0 Closed All toxicity testing for FY15/16 is complete. $212,855 $74,975 D. Data Management

$21,000 $25,140 $0 Closed Explanation of cost overrun, see Finance Memo dated April 26, 2017. $25,140 ($4,140)

E. Reporting

$15,000 $9,522 $6,651 Matthew Heberger (5 hrs) Thomas Jabusch (46.5 hrs) Ila Shimabuku (1.5 hrs)

Outputs: Finalized all figures and tables; wrote, edited, and proofread report. Corresponded with reviewers, made numerous edits and added additional details in response to reviewer comments.

Deliverables Completed: Final draft of Year 1 Current Use Pesticides Data Report.

$16,173 ($1,173)


A. Synthesis Report - Monitoring Data Gaps $50,000 $51,610 $0 Closed $51,610 ($1,610)

A. Monthly Pathogen Sampling

$72,000 $55,008 $5,222 Subcontracts with Eurofins and Biovir

Outputs: Field data collection and laboratory analyses of pathogens Giardia and Cryptosporidium in March 2017. This was the last round of monthly sampling, so this budget line can now be closed.

Deliverables Completed: Year 2 pathogens uploaded to the Regional Data Center database.

$60,230 $11,770

B. Data Management

$10,000 $2,987 $3,813

Amy Franz (27.25 hrs)John Ross (6 hrs)Michael Weaver (1 hrs)Adam Wong (1.5 hrs)

Outputs: Logged data submittal correspondence with lab personnel.

Deliverables Completed: Year 2 pathogens uploaded to the Regional Data Center database. Data will be mirrored in CEDEN in Q3 following QA sign-off by project partners.

$6,800 $3,200

C. Pathogen Follow-up Trigger Study $20,000 $0 $0 No activity. $0 $20,000

TOTAL $912,938 $658,181 $146,015 $804,197 $108,741

Item 4. Communications. Funded by $20,000 from the Water Board contract with ASC. This contract was closed because it was unable to be extended; $2,351 was returned to Water Board.Item 6C. Estimated expenditures on the SWAMP contract for toxicity analyses were based on unit costs, the number of samples collected to date, and discussions with RB5/UCD staff.

Table 2 Delta RMP FY15/16 Budget. Budget and cumulative expenses through 5/31/2017 by line item, with detailed report for expenses for the period since the last report (3‐month period of March, April, and May 2017).

4. Communicatio

8. Pathogen Study-Year 2

6. CUP Monitoring

1. Program Management

2. Governance



Table 3 Delta RMP FY16/17 Revenue (expected, invoiced, received or reserve funds) through 5/31/2017 by participant group

In-Kind Received Total

Dredgers

$60,000 $60,000

ILRP

$148,780 $148,780

MS4 Phase 1

$158,200 $158,200

MS4 Phase 2

$189,999 $189,999

POTW

$205,103 $205,103

Water Board (SWAMP) $254,145

$254,145

SFCWA

$100,000 $100,000

TOTAL $254,145 $862,082 $1,116,227


Task Subtask BudgetExpenses

Through Last Report

New Expenses Since Last Report

Staff and Subcontractors Billing Since Last Report

Work Summary For This ReportTotal Expenses

To DateFunds

Remaining

A. Program Planning $76,000 $41,389 $28,847 Jay Davis (7 hrs)Amy Franz (3 hrs)Matthew Heberger (115.5 hrs)Thomas Jabusch (71 hrs)Philip Trowbridge (27.75 hrs)

Outputs: Most significant accomplishment was the creation of the FY17/18 workplan and budget, including revenue forecast, staffing plan, and coordination with multiple subcontractors. Technical proposals for monitoring of mercury, nutrients, and pesticides. Discussions and meetings held with technical subcommittees. Assisted RB5 staff with fast‐track approval of SEP proposals for additional mercury monitoring. Coordination calls with RB5 staff, chairs, and others; internal staff coordination meetings. Action item follow‐up.

Deliverables Completed: FY17/18 Workplan and Budget. Maintained stoplight reports of Action Items and Deliverables.

$70,235 $5,765

B. Contract and Financial Management

$52,000 $28,971 $18,804 Amy Franz (1.25 hrs)Matthew Heberger (64.5 hrs)Thomas Jabusch (1 hrs)Frank Leung (17 hrs)Meredith Lofthouse (78 hrs)Micha Salomon (4.5 hrs)Philip Trowbridge (9.25 hrs)

Outputs: Internal accounting; subcontract management; contracts with participants for fee payments; checked and approved internal and external invoices; tracked expenses by task; Finance Subcommittee call on 4/25/2017. Generating invoices and setting up accounting systems new MS4 Phase 2 participants.

Deliverables Completed: Quarterly Financial Report and Finance Subcommittee call. Signed contracts for subcontractors engaged in FY17/18 work plan.

$47,775 $4,225

C. External Review Response $17,500 $10,529 $802 Matthew Heberger (7 hrs) Outputs: Participation External Review Planning Committee meetings. Follow‐up and coordination of guest speakers at the final External Review presentation.

Deliverables Completed: None. Final presentation to the External Review panel took place on June 27, 2017.

$11,331 $6,169

A. SC meetings

$51,300 $37,040 $12,142

Jay Davis (3 hrs)Matthew Heberger (53 hrs)Thomas Jabusch (7.5 hrs)Philip Trowbridge (11.75 hrs)

Outputs: Prepared agenda package for SC meeting; pre‐meeting calls with members; held meeting on 5/3/2017; facilitated meeting (Brock Bernstein); prepared meeting summary; updated Record of Decision; scheduled future meetings; led Coordination Committee calls before and after the SC meeting.

Deliverables Completed: SC meeting on 5/3/2017 and meeting summary. Coordinating Committee meetings on April 18 and May 10, 2017.

$49,181 $2,119

1. Core Functions

2. Governance

Table 4 Delta RMP FY16/17 Budget. Budget and cumulative expenses through 5/31/2017 by task and subtask, with detailed report for expenses for the period since the last report (3‐month period including March, April, and May 2017).



Through Last Report




To DateFunds

Remaining

B. TAC meetings

$64,800 $47,775 $22,490 Jay Davis (2 hrs)Matthew Heberger (41 hrs)Thomas Jabusch (88.5 hrs)Micha Salomon (1 hrs)Philip Trowbridge (2.25 hrs)

Outputs: Prepared agenda package for TAC meeting; pre‐meeting calls; held meeting on 3/14/17; chaired meeting (Stephen McCord); prepared meeting summary; scheduled future meetings; held 1 conference call with Nutrients Subcommittee; 2 conference call with Pesticides Subcommittee. Additional time was required to prepare longer than usual TAC meeting agendas containing a number of new monitoring proposals.

Deliverables Completed: TAC meeting on 3/14/17 and meeting summary. Nutrient Subcommittee meeting on 3/7/2017. Pesticide Subcommittee meeting on 3/9/2017 and 4/19/2017.

$70,265 ($5,465)

A. Quality Assurance System$15,000 $7,231 $257 Donald Yee (1.5 hrs)

Outputs: QA officer review of incoming pesticides data. $7,488

B. Technical Oversight and Coordination

$15,000 $935 $6,598 Subcontract: Applied Marine Sciences

ASC: Matthew Heberger (3.75 hrs)Thomas Jabusch (0.5 hrs)John Ross (8 hrs)

Outputs: Conducted statistical power analysis to support monitoring design. Phone call to discuss data management and coordination with SWAMP and labs.

Deliverables Completed: Memos on power analysis included in technical proposals as part of FY17/18 Workplan.

$7,533 $7,467

A. Factsheet

$5,000 $0 $573 Matthew Heberger (5 hrs) Outputs: Drafted and formatted fact sheet for consideration by Steering Committee.

Deliverables Completed: Fact sheet to be approved at a future SC meeting.

$573 $4,427

B. Workshops on Technical Issues$15,000 $0 $0 $0 $15,000

B. Pesticide Laboratory Work $190,830 $0 $36,801 Subcontract: USGS CAWSC Outputs: Monthly pesticides monitoring and laboratory analysis by the USGS California Water Science Center at Sacramento State.

$36,801 $154,029

C. Toxicity Laboratory Work $267,700 $101,695 $1,195 UCD AHPL Output: Monthly toxicity testing of water samples by the Aquatic Health Program Laboratory at UC Davis.

$102,890 $164,810

D. Data Management $37,400 $21,188 $4,111 Amy Franz (14.75 hrs)Michael Weaver (12 hrs)Adam Wong (8 hrs)Donald Yee (11 hrs)

Outputs: Reviewed the toxicity, pesticide and copper data for standardization and QA/QC. Built toxicity QA Summary tables. Wrote QA Summary. Uploaded data to RDC and CEDEN. Sent updates on data availability to stakeholders.

Deliverables Completed: The datasets for FY15/16 and FY16/17 were blended together. We plan to finish FY16/17 on budget.

$25,299 $12,101

E. Reporting $20,000 $1,252 $0 No billing this quarter. This budget line is for the Year 2 data report.

$1,252 $18,748

A. Synthesis of Existing Data $33,000 $2,439 $10,030 Thomas Jabusch (81 hrs)Philip Trowbridge (3 hrs)

Outputs: Data analysis, creation of summary figures and tables. Drafting and editing of report. Correspondence with Nutrients Subcommittee.

Deliverables Completed: None. Draft Nutrients Synthesis report will be distributed to technical subcommittee in July 2017.

$12,468 $20,532 7. Nutrients Synthesis


4. Communications

6. CUP Monitoring



Through Last Report




To DateFunds

Remaining

B. Modeling $50,000 $33,032 $13,213 RMA Subcontract ($1,400)ASC: Amy Franz (5 hrs)John Ross (8.5 hrs)Adam Wong (2.5 hrs)

Outputs: ASC review of RMA deliverables and preparation of scope of work for RMA contract.

Deliverables Completed: None. Draft Nutrients Modeling report will be distributed in July 2017.

$46,245 $3,755

C. Statistics $37,000 $2,399 $0 Outputs: Journal article manuscript submitted. (Much of this work is being performed as an in‐kind contribution by statisticians at the EPA Office of Research and Development.)

$2,399 $34,601

A Data collection $90,000 $55,041 $15,735 Moss Landing Marine Laboratory (MLML) subcontract

Outputs: Quarterly mercury monitoring conducted on 2/28 and 4/25.

Deliverables Completed: None. Data will be uploaded in 2018 after the field work is complete.

$70,776 $19,224

B. RMP Data Management $14,500 $2,109 $1,683 Amy Franz (5 hrs)John Ross (8.5 hrs)Adam Wong (2.5 hrs)

Outputs: Prepared field templates, logged incoming data, organized, tracked, and compiled data in internal database.

Deliverables Completed: None. Data will be uploaded in 2018 after the field work is complete.

$3,792 $10,708

C. ASC Oversight $3,500 $4,018 $205 Jay Davis (1 hrs) Outputs: Presented mercury monitoring proposal for the TAC. $4,222 ($722)

D. Reporting

$5,000 $853 ($640) John Ross (‐6 hrs) Outputs: None during this time period. Negative entry is a correction for overbilling during last quarter. Mr. Ross accidentally reported 6 hours that ought to have been billed to Task 3B, as it covered a power analysis contributing to proposal writing. (Hours will show up in next quarterly memo.)

$213 $4,787

TOTAL $1,060,530 $397,895 $172,844 $570,739 $489,791

Item 6C. Estimated expenditures on the SWAMP contract for toxicity analyses were based on unit costs, the number of samples collected to date, and discussions with RB5 staff.

8. Mercury Study


Table 5 Delta RMP Undesignated Funds Reserve Ledger though 2/28/2017.

Budget

Year

Deposit or

Withdrawal

Authorized

By

Date Amount Comment

FY14/15 Deposit Steering

Committee

6/16/2015 $41,000 Release funds allocated for CUP monitoring in FY14/15 budget

in order to re-allocate these funds into the FY1516 budget for

CUP monitoring.

FY14/15 Deposit

10/15/2016 $51,903 Extra revenue received in FY14/15. Actual revenue minus

budgeted expenses for FY1415 (number is updated whenever

budget is changed, date reflects most recent update).

FY15/16 Withdrawal Steering

Committee

6/16/2015 ($41,000) Release funds allocated for CUP monitoring in FY14/15 budget

in order to re-allocate these funds into the FY1516 budget for

CUP monitoring.


Committee

4/25/2016 ($20,000) Allocate funding to FY15/16 for possible pathogen trigger

study (TBD).


Committee

4/25/2016 $100,000 SC directed that SFCWA funding of $100K (contribution for

FY15/16) be transferred to reserve.

FY 16/17 Withdrawal Steering

Committee

4/25/2016 ($100,000) SC directed that $100K be withdrawn from the reserve to be

reallocated as revenue for FY16/17. SFCWA contribution in

March 2017 ($100K) will be allocated to FY17/18 revenue.


Committee

7/20/2016 $84,444 SC approved that $84,444 be transferred from FY15/16 revenue

to the reserve as undesignated funds.


Committee

10/18/2016 ($10,000) SC approved up to $10,000 for coordinating and drafting a

response to the External Panel Review.

FY16/17 Withdrawal Finance

Committee

5/23/2017 ($7,500) Finance Subcommittee approved transfer of funds to cover

final phase of External Review. TOTAL

$98,847


Delta Regional Monitoring Program Proposal Review Process (July 20, 2017 Draft)

OVERVIEW The Delta Regional Monitoring Program (RMP) Steering Committee (SC) directs the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to develop and evaluate proposed monitoring and assessment programs. The TAC is a non-voting body that selects co-chairs to facilitate meetings and direct the discussion of important issues, with support from the Delta RMP Implementing Entity, the Aquatic Science Center. The Coordinating Committee communicates direction, action items, and reporting between the SC and the TAC. In addition to SC direction, Delta RMP members and external stakeholders can propose monitoring programs to the TAC. These proposals are generally vetted first by the Coordinating Committee. The TAC then reviews and recommends monitoring proposals for Delta RMP funding, which forms the basis of the annual monitoring workplan. “Monitoring” in this context includes regular (status and trends) field measurements and sample analyses, as well as special studies.

PURPOSE The purpose of this document is to develop the foundation of a structured study evaluation process and communication tool between the SC and TAC. This “Decision Grid” is one tool that will be used along with direction from the SC, a better developed consensus seeking process, and improved communication with the SC and Coordinating Committee that are all consistent with the Delta RMP Charter .

BACKGROUND This Decision Grid was developed based on key components of the Delta RMP Charter, experience within the TAC implementing direction from the SC, and comments from the Delta Science Program external review.

TAC Charter The Delta RMP Charter specifies the expected role and responsibilities of the TAC (emphasis added):

“The TAC makes recommendations to the SC based on technical evaluation of proposed or existing program elements. The TAC provides technical recommendations with options and justifications based on the priorities and resource allocations set by the SC. The SC then considers TAC recommendations in formulating their decisions. Recommendations should be reached through consensus. In the event that the TAC representatives cannot come to consensus on a recommendation, majority and minority opinions should be reported to the SC (See Section 7.B.6 for more details on the TAC decision-making process).”

The Charter does not include detailed TAC governance and rules for decision-making, but instead relies on consensus building within the TAC and clear communication with the Coordinating Committee and the SC.


http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/delta_water_quality/delta_regional_monitoring/program_docs/drmp_charter.pdf

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/delta_water_quality/delta_regional_monitoring/program_docs/drmp_charter.pdf

Example Action Items from Steering Committee At the May 3, 2017 SC meeting, the SC directed the TAC to provide the following information on previously provided pesticide program options:

“…pros/cons of the two approaches, slides showing how data from the proposed approaches would be interpreted to answer management questions, and how the costs of the Delta RMP might change with external funding for certain aspects of the projects…”

While this action item was an issue-specific SC request (pesticide program development) it is representative of a typical request for technical program development. However, the TAC does not have a stated robust and widely understood review process. This document is intended as a starting point to improve transparency and organization of the TAC review and evaluation. Communication of this evaluation between the TAC and SC should be clear and provide sufficient information to evaluate technical and funding considerations against the Delta RMP Charter and membership needs.

Delta Science Program External Review The Delta Science Program coordinated and funded an external review of the Delta RMP monitoring planning documents in 2016 and 2017. In the draft report the external reviewers generally found that the proposed monitoring components were insufficient to address the RMP Management Questions described in the Charter and generally lacked clear evaluations of how data collected would be interpreted to answer the Management Questions. Many of the stated technical shortcomings are included in this document as evaluation criteria.


PROPOSAL AND REVIEW PROCESS External stakeholders, the TAC, or the TAC subcommittees (e.g., nutrients, pesticides, mercury) can propose monitoring components for consideration by the SC. The TAC should evaluate all proposals using a consistent process and then inform the SC on recommendations and their rationale so that the SC can make funding decisions. A standard review process allows the TAC to make recommendations based on consistent and agreed-upon criteria. Any dissenting opinions should also be provided to the SC. The evaluation criteria may change based on input from the SC, but they are intended to 1) support consistent, transparent, and technically defensible evaluations, 2) provide a process for the TAC to follow, and 3) enable clear communication and be responsive to the SC. The Charter does not distinguish types of study (i.e., special study or status and trend) or provide specific priorities, these are instead set by the SC. The SC has not yet provided guidance to the TAC on these types of studies and has generally not distinguished longer term status and trend monitoring from shorter term special studies. Evaluation criteria, including a list of required elements, should be well understood during development by the TAC or external parties. This will assist in the preparation of the proposal and also allow the TAC to evaluate the proposals in an efficient and consistent manner. While the goal of the TAC is to provide consensus proposals and recommendations to the SC, it is not always possible. In some cases, this is because of different interpretations of the SC direction, Delta RMP objectives, or otherwise related to regulatory implications of study results. For this reason, the following guidelines should be adhered to during the TAC evaluation:

• SC clarify its priorities and policy issues identified during the program development or review process.

• When consensus cannot be reached by the TAC on what monitoring to recommend, discuss and document differing interpretations or opinions.

• Vet TAC message points and dissenting opinions through the TAC prior to distribution to the SC.

Some form of the Decision Grid would be provided to the SC along with the specific recommendations from the TAC, including any dissenting points of view and additional narrative discussion, as necessary.


Proposed Evaluation Criteria These proposed evaluation criteria fall into three categories described below. Some criteria, as determined by the SC, may be more important than others, and can be given more weight in SC review of the TAC recommendations. The criteria are then a means to have a structured evaluation and discussion of proposed studies.

I. Management and Assessment Questions Management questions are set by the SC, and the TAC proposes assessment questions as testable study components to help answer the management questions. Assessment questions are included as part of the Monitoring Design Summary (revised June 2015), however, these may change over time depending on study needs and to build toward addressing the management questions. A) Is the proposal responsive to the Charter management and assessment question(s)

prioritized by the SC? 1) Status and Trends. Is there a problem or are there signs of a problem?

a) Is water quality currently, or trending towards, adversely affecting beneficial uses of the Delta?

b) Which constituents may be impairing beneficial uses in subregions of the Delta? c) Are trends similar or different across different subregions of the Delta?

2) Sources, Pathways, Loadings, and Processes. Which sources and processes are most important to understand and quantify? a) Which sources, pathways, loadings, and processes (e.g., transformations,

bioaccumulation) contribute most to identified problems? b) What is the magnitude of each source and/or pathway (e.g., municipal wastewater,

atmospheric deposition)? c) What are the magnitudes of internal sources and/or pathways (e.g. benthic flux) and

sinks in the Delta? 3) Forecasting Water Quality Under Different Management Scenarios

a) Which sources, pathways, loadings, and processes (e.g., transformations, bioaccumulation) contribute most to identified problems?

b) What is the magnitude of each source and/or pathway (e.g., municipal wastewater, atmospheric deposition)?

c) What are the magnitudes of internal sources and/or pathways (e.g. benthic flux) and sinks in the Delta?

4) Effectiveness Tracking a) Are water quality conditions improving as a result of management actions such that

beneficial uses will be met? b) Are loadings changing as a result of management actions?

B) Does the proposal adequately state and support assessment questions? For example: 1) Are the assessment questions testable or otherwise provide an outcome threshold that can

be measured against? 2) Does the proposal adequately demonstrate how the results will be presented and

interpreted?


http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/delta_water_quality/delta_regional_monitoring/wq_monitoring_plans/drmp_monitoring_design.pdf

II. Technical Foundation The technical foundation of the proposal is evaluated based on how well the proposed tools answer the study assessment questions. This includes both the assessment of data quality, geographic and temporal characterization, and how well understood the proposed tool “outcomes” are. The following are suggested types of evaluation criteria that should be modified to appropriately evaluate different types of proposed studies. A) Are there clear Data Quality Objectives to ensure that data collected are of sufficient quality

and quantity to support the study objectives? Are monitoring objectives clearly defined? The study plan should specifically address reproducibility and reliability of the outcomes.

B) Is the geographic scope of the study well defined? Does the study characterize conditions within the Delta, tributaries into the Delta, or only a smaller assessment area?

C) Is the temporal scope and resolution of the study well defined? Does the study clearly define the conditions of interest (e.g. high flows)? Can the results of the study be used to evaluate trends over the timescale of interest or target magnitude of change?

D) Do the sample collection or analysis methods introduce any known or potential bias (e.g. cross sectional composites vs. side bank grabs, sample collection in the non-target points of the hydrograph, etc.)? Is the study accuracy adequately measured?

E) How well established and understood are the monitoring tools? 1) How well are effects from monitoring tools linked to management decisions? 2) Are effect thresholds known that reliably characterize beneficial use impairment? 3) How well are effect end points linked to impacts on beneficial uses – if not, are steps in

any future linkage analysis well articulated?

III. Budget, Priority, Coordination, and Other Considerations A) Does the proposal meet the budget specified by the SC? B) Priority/timeliness - Is there urgency to conducting the monitoring, such as to inform

planned policies or regulations? 1) Does the monitoring respond to a stated SC priority beyond the Management Questions? 2) Is there enough lead time to generate the information needed to support upcoming

decisions? 3) Do the monitoring components need to be completed in a certain order relative to (and

contingent upon) other activities? 4) Can the monitoring be coordinated with other efforts to increase data power or reduce

overall study cost or duration? C) Will the study build upon, add to, and/or compliment other studies conducted by the Delta

RMP? D) Do the monitoring objectives consider regulatory program study requirements (TMDLs,

Basin Plan monitoring and surveillance, etc.) or other requirements that can be completed as a collaborative group?

E) Does the study replicate or work by others or could it be coordinated with other external studies?

F) Is the monitoring plan complete or is additional information necessary before the study could be implemented?


Example Decision Grid Evaluation Criteria Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

Text notes or other ‘scoring’ could be included in each assessment.

I. Management Questions A. Relevant Management questions list here as directed by the

Steering Committee

1. Are the assessment questions testable or otherwise provide an outcome threshold that can be measured against?

2. Does the proposal adequately demonstrate how the results will be presented and interpreted?

II. Technical Foundation A. Data Quality Objectives

B. Geographic Scope

C. Temporal Scope and Resolution

D. Known or potential bias

E. Extent the monitoring tools are established and well understood?

III. Budget, Priority, Coordination, and Other Considerations A. Does the monitoring respond to a stated SC priority beyond the

Management Questions?

B. Priority/timeliness - Is there urgency to conducting the monitoring, such as to inform planned policies or regulations?

C. Will the study build upon, add to, and/or compliment other studies conducted by the Delta RMP?

D. Do the monitoring objectives consider regulatory program study requirements (TMDLs, Basin Plan monitoring and surveillance, etc.) or other requirements that can be completed as a collaborative group?

E. Does the study replicate other work or could it be coordinated with other external studies?

F. Is the monitoring plan complete or is additional information necessary before the study could be implemented?


DRAFT for Discussion: Revised Scope for the Current-Use Pesticides Interpretive Report Prepared by Thomas Jabusch, Matthew Heberger, and Phil Trowbridge, SFEI-ASC, July 20, 2017

The Delta RMP Steering Committee asked staff of the Aquatic Science Center (ASC) to develop a revised scope of work and cost estimate for producing the Year 1-2 Pesticides Interpretive Report. Specifically, we were asked to develop a plan that includes analyzing pesticides and toxicity data for the Delta collected by others (particularly data in CEDEN and USGS’s NWIS databases) back to 2011, in addition to pesticide data collected for the Delta RMP. The Steering Committee agreed that the Pesticides Subcommittee should do further planning for this report.

The expanded scope and updated cost estimate presented here is based on recommendations made by the Pesticide Subcommittee at its July 19, 2017 meeting. The subcommittee also asked ASC to put together a plan that would include milestones and plans for regular input by the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and Pesticides Subcommittee.

Timeline for project: August 2017 – December 2018

Authors/Analysts:

• ASC staff scientists, environmental analysts • Dr. Dan Wong, California Department of Pesticides Regulation (DPR) (as reviewer or contributor,

pending) • Budget for subcontract/honoraria for 1-2 external reviewers/contributors

1. Delta RMP Questions to Answer

The Delta RMP Management and Assessment Questions regarding pesticides are listed below. We propose to focus the report on the RMP status and trends questions listed below:

1. To what extent do pesticides contribute to observed toxicity in the Delta? (S&T1) 2. Which pesticides or degradates have the highest potential to be causing toxicity in the Delta and

therefore should be the priority for monitoring and management? (S&T1.1) 3. What are the spatial and temporal extents of lethal and sublethal aquatic and sediment toxicity

observed in the Delta? (S&T1.2) 4. What are the spatial/temporal distributions of concentrations of currently used pesticides

identified as likely causes of observed toxicity? (S&T2)


Answering question #1 is a major goal of the Program. This report will provide a preliminary answer and/or highlight limitations in the current datasets that prevent conclusions from being drawn.

Answering questions #2-#4 will inform decisions about future monitoring for pesticides and toxicity in the Delta. The results will show where and when pesticides and toxicity are observed, which pesticides should be the highest priority for monitoring, and gaps in the current monitoring programs.

2. Compilation of Existing Data and Associated Reports as an Interim Step

The pesticide subcommittee recommended a phased approach to the production of the interpretive report (roughly equivalent to 10%, 50%, and 90% deliverables). These are important decision points in the project where the TAC and subcommittee will provide feedback and direction. The first milestone should be a comprehensive summary of existing data that fall within our recommended geographic boundaries and analysis timeframe, and existing reports that are based on the data. The summary will include an evaluation of data quality and basic visualization (e.g. time series) of existing data sets meeting data quality criteria). The data summary and visualizations will serve as a planning aid for the pesticide subcommittee.

Before attempting to answer each of the management and assessment questions stated above, we must first ask whether there is sufficient valid data to answer the question. The answer to this question will help determine the types of analyses we can perform. Many of the the proposed analyses can be performed using only the two years of Delta RMP data. However, longer datasets may be amenable to other, more powerful analysis methods. Some questions may be answered using just a subset of the data (e.g., just for certain pesticides with sufficient data).

The Pesticide Subcommittee will guide the selection of more specific questions to be addressed by the report, the specific data analysis methods to be used, and the specific data products to be generated to convey the results. The Pesticide Subcommittee will also provide direction regarding which datasets to reject and how to treat non-detects in the data compilation and evaluation step as well as the criteria for determining that there are sufficient data for conducting the analyses.

Subsequently, the authors will identify and remove invalid data, identify constituents for which there is no aquatic toxicity benchmark, identify records which are non-detect but for which the detection limit is greater than the benchmark, determine the most appropriate statistical methods to treat non-detects, etc. This next step will yield a database of valid results with appropriate metadata. This cleaned and filtered database can be analyzed and used to answer our assessment questions.

3. Determination of the appropriate analysis methods and aquatic toxicity benchmarks

During this step, the authors (ASC scientists and external collaborators) will prepare a tech memo describing options for analyzing the data. This will present a more detailed description of the proposed analyses informed by the exploratory data analysis and visualization described above. The purpose of this memo is to have a robust discussion and come to an agreement that we are using the right methods and producing the right outputs. The memo will include a description and examples of typical outputs, in terms of tables, graphs, maps, etc. The memo will also describe statistical methods to be used, and describe their advantages, disadvantages, and assumptions.


Based on input from the Pesticides Subcommittee, the proposed methods will not include either ecological or human health risk analysis. However, the subcommittee agrees that comparing observed pesticide concentrations to thresholds or benchmarks would be an appropriate and a valuable first step to evaluating whether there is a potential risk to aquatic life.

Choosing the appropriate benchmark is not a simple task, as benchmarks have been published by a number of different agencies for a wide variety of purposes. Therefore, this is an area where we plan to spend time and effort and make sure to have thoroughly vetted by Delta RMP stakeholders.

4. Preparation of final report

Draft results and conclusions of the report will be disseminated early to allow for discussion and input. A proposed outline for interim milestones, along with a timeline and costs, is presented in the tables below.


Recommended Temporal and Geographic Scope for the Project

Feature Criteria

Temporal Extent circa 2011–present

Data to include in this analysis

- Delta RMP (Years 1&2)

- CEDEN

- NWIS (USGS)

To the extent feasible, avoid reanalyzing data that have been previously reported on. Synthesize findings from existing publications based on the data and consider them in the evaluation

Matrices Water column and sediment; analyze water column data, consider sediment findings reported by the Stream Pollution Trends (SPoT) program of the State Water Board in the evaluation.

Geographic scope

Legal Delta plus some upstream areas up to 10 miles upstream, such as : - Sac. River to Veteran’s bridge - American River - Smaller tributaries (Eastside, Cache/Yolo)

Proposed Scope of Work Options and Estimated Cost

Task Purpose Deliverable and Due Date Cost Estimate

1. Initial data compilation and review

1) Evaluate data availability and quality, 2) decide on subsets of data to be used in the analyses, and 3) determine the analyses to be performed

1. Summary of existing data and reports 2. Basic data visualizations Due: March 1, 2018

$15K Senior Scientist – 20 hrs Scientist – 60 hrs Analyst – 50 hrs

2. Stakeholder Input Involve stakeholders at an appropriate level to decide on specific questions to address, data to be used, data quality objectives, analysis methods, and data products Review process: obtain input from TAC and pesticide subcommittee at critical steps; including time to prepare discussions, incorporate feedback, facilitate meetings

1.Vetted list of check-in-points and review periods 2. Presentations at milestone meetings with TAC and Pesticide Subcommittee 3. Response to comments on 2 drafts of the tech memo (task #4) and final report (task #5). Due: October 1, 2017

$20K Senior Scientist – 20 hrs Scientist – 50 hrs Program Manager – 90 hrs

3. Data management and quality assurance

Format data, implement data quality criteria, create dataset for analyses

Database with dataset for analyses Due: February 1, 2018

$15K QA Officer – 15 hrs Scientist – 15 hrs Data Manager – 25 hrs


Task Purpose Deliverable and Due Date Cost Estimate

(We can compile the data from other programs immediately. The DRMP Year 2 data will be ready in February 2018.)

Analyst – 80 hrs

4. Data evaluation framework

Prepare draft materials to facilitate stakeholder decisions on the data evaluation framework (use of benchmarks and any other guidance for interpreting result), summarize outcomes in a memorandum

Technical memorandum describing the data evaluation framework Due: December 1, 2017 – Draft March 31, 2018 -Final

$10K Senior Scientist – 5 hrs Scientist – 32 hrs Program Manager – 35 hrs Analyst – 10 hrs

5. Draft and final report Write and edit report, prepare summary tables and synthesize data into graphs, graphic design support for final document

Draft outline – May 1, 2018 Draft report – October 1, 2018 Final report – December 31, 2018

$35K Senior Scientist – 30 hrs Scientist – 120 hrs Senior Editor – 30 hrs Analyst – 80 hrs Designer – 20 hrs

Total estimated cost $95K

Funding already approved in FY17/18 budget

$60K

Proposed budget covers ASC labor and honoraria or subcontracts for co-authors to be involved in writing or reviewing the report.


DATE: July 19, 2017

TO: Delta RMP Steering Committee

FROM: Matt Heberger, Program Manager

RE: Proposed process and timeline for setting Delta RMP fees

Purpose

For its first three years, the Delta RMP has been able to grow despite flat fees and inflation because new participants have joined. However, fewer new participants will join over time. The effect of inflation on the RMP’s budget is equivalent to a loss of $14,000 each year in purchasing power (assuming 2% inflation). At some point, the Program will need to increase fees to maintain the purchasing power of its core funding. At its January 26, 2017 meeting, the Steering Committee requested ASC to prepare a memo outlining options for setting fees and pros/cons of different approaches. The purpose of this memo is to present these options. In preparing these options, we have drawn upon the experiences and lessons learned from the Bay RMP in setting fees.

Lessons Learned from the Bay RMP for Setting Fees

Have a Schedule to Set Fees 2-Years in Advance It is important to have an annual calendar that sets the time to discuss fees and to provide enough lead time for participants to consult with their boards and to incorporate fee increases into budgets. The schedule that has worked well for the Bay RMP is as follows:

• Mid-year meeting: Nonbinding discussion of fees for the year after next • End-of-year meeting: Decision on fees for the year after next

This schedule gives participants at least 3 months to discuss proposed fees with their constituents before voting and 18 months to incorporate fee increases into their budgets.


Set Fees for 3-Year Periods It has also worked well for the Bay RMP to set fees for three years at a time. The fees can be held constant for the 3-year period or a percent increase per year can be assigned. Both of these approaches have downsides. The first approach requires large step increases every 3 years to account for accumulated inflation. The second approach requires staff to estimate the inflation rate multiple years in the future.

8%

8%

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Hypo

thet

ical

Fee

Amou

nt

Year

Approach #1: Fixed Fees for 3-Year Periods

Fees Inflation (Year 1=100)

0.0% 0.0%3.0%

3.0%3.0%

1.5%1.5%

1.5%

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Hypo

thet

ical

Fee

Amou

nt

Year

Approach #2: Percent Increase Set for 3-Year Periods

Fees Inflation (Year 1=100)

Numbers shown are the percent increase for each year


Setting fees every three years does not obviate the need to have a discussion of fees annually. Rather, if a decision on fees is not needed that year, the agenda item serves a reminder that the decision is coming up in the future and to get ready. It is also an opportunity to remind Steering Committee members of the previous agreement and the expected fees for the year after next.

Have a Multi-Year Plan to Achieve Program Objectives Some members of the Delta RMP Steering Committee were interested in linking the fee amounts to the expected cost to implement monitoring and special studies needed to answer the management questions. In reality, the funding needed to fully answer all of these questions will always exceed the available fees. A better approach is to develop a multi-year plan for how the questions will be answered over time to inform the management decision. This plan will highlight opportunities to sequence projects to keep costs steady. It will also show times when additional funding will be needed either from reserves, grants, or other sources.


Proposed Schedule for Delta RMP Fee Decisions

The table below outlines the schedule for fee decisions if the Delta RMP decides to follow a similar schedule as the Bay RMP.

Meeting Date Decision

January 2018 SC Meeting Nonbinding discussion of fees for the 3-year period FY20/21, FY21/22, and FY22/23

April 2018 SC Meeting Decision on fees for the 3-year period FY20/21, FY21/22, and FY22/23

Meetings in 2019 and 2020 Confirm previous fee decisions.

Advance warning of upcoming decision on FY23/24-FY25/26 fees.

January 2021 SC Meeting Nonbinding discussion of fees for the 3-year period FY23/24, FY24/25, and FY25/26

April 2021 SC Meeting Decision on fees for the 3-year period FY23/24, FY24/25, and FY25/26

It is already too late to follow this process for decisions about FY18/19 and FY19/20 fees. Therefore, the Steering Committee will need to follow an accelerated process for those budget years. One option for this accelerated process is listed below.

Meeting Date Decision

October 2017 SC Meeting Nonbinding discussion of fees for FY18/19 and FY19/20

January 2018 SC Meeting Decision on fees for FY18/19 and FY19/20


DELTA REGIONAL MONITORING PROGRAMImpact of the Delta RMP on Management DecisionsInforming High-Stakes Decisions: Cities, counties, and the state are spending billions of dollars to protect and restore the waters in the Delta. Today, investments are being made to upgrade wastewater and stormwater infrastructure, reduce runoff from farms, and to manage contaminated sediment. Also at stake are decisions on how to manage water supplies.

Although dozens of agencies spend over $10 million per year to monitor Delta water, key questions have gone unanswered. In its first three years, the Delta RMP has focused on contaminants, seeking to better understand their role in declines in the health of Delta ecosystems and fish populations.

Goals and Objectives of the Delta RMP The mission of the Delta RMP is to inform decisions on how to protect, and where necessary, restore beneficial uses of water in the Delta, by producing objective and cost-effective scientific information critical to understanding regional water quality conditions and trends in the Delta. The RMP is an innovative collaboration between the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Aquatic Science Center, and other scientists and interested parties. The program is led by representatives of publicly owned treatment works, municipal storm water programs, irrigated agriculture, water suppliers, and state and federal agencies.

State and federal laws require dischargers to monitor waters downstream of their discharge. This monitoring provides some useful information, but equivalent funds could be used more efficiently and productively on a coordinated program of water quality monitoring. Rather than continuing uncoordinated individual water quality monitoring programs, regional monitoring allows dischargers to pool their funds and expertise to provide data to better inform management and policy decisions facing the Delta.

(Photo from ASC)


MONITORING PROGRAMS• Pesticidesandtoxicity–The RMP has collected

monthly sampling at 5 baseline sites for the past2 years.

• Nutrients(nitrogenandphosphorus)–Theprogram has conducted important data synthesisand modeling work, and will collect its ownnutrients data starting in Fiscal Year 2017–2018.

• Mercuryinfish,waterandsediment–Monitoringbegan in Summer 2016 focusing on areas of theDelta likely to be affected by major existing or newsources of mercury contamination.

• Pathogensororganismsthatcancausehumanillnesses– A 2-year special study ofCryptosporidium and Giardia was finished inMarch 2017.

What Makes the Delta RMP Special?Stakeholder driven and transparent: All data generated are freely available to the public.

Adaptable and flexible: Our committee structure and periodic program reviews make the Delta RMP able to respond to changing management priorities and advances in scientific understanding.

Collaborative culture: The program seeks to inform a range of often competing interests (habitat restoration, flood protection, water supply) in an environment that encourages objectivity, consensus-building, and science-based decision making.

Cost-effective and efficient: Over 70% of the Delta RMP’s annual budget of $1.2 million goes toward monitoring, covering field data collection and laboratory analyses. The program also leverages in-kind contributions from state and federal agencies worth over $250,000 each year.

For More Information VisittheDeltaRMPwebsite:http://tinyurl.com/DeltaRMPorcontactPatrickMorris,[email protected],(916)464-4621

Current Use Pesticides

Delta Legal Boundary

Pathogens

MercurySportfishWater

DELTA MONITORING

Sacramento River

Mokelumne River

American River

San Joaquin River

Liberty Island

Antioch Fishing

Pier

Big BreakRegional

SHoreline

Clifton Court

ForebayHarvey

O. Banks Pumping

Plant

MonitoringtheDelta.(Photo courtesy of Steven San Julian, California Department of Water Resources, Municipal Water Quality Investigations (DWR-MWQI))


Delta RMP Deliverables Stoplight Report

Delta RMP Deliverables Scorecard Report

Key to Status Colors:Green indicates greater than 90 days until the deliverable is due.Yellow indicates a deliverable due within 90 days.Red indicates a deliverable that is overdue.

Project Primary Deliverable Assigned To Due Date Status Comments

1 Delta RMP (FY15/16) CUP Monitoring Annual Monitoring Report forFY15/16 CUP Monitoring

Thomas Jabusch 02/28/17 Complete Data need to be uploaded to CEDEN by 2/1/17.

2

Delta RMP (FY15/16) Pathogens Study - Year 2 Sample Collection and DataManagement of Year 2Pathogens Data

Amy Franz 07/31/17 Data from BioVir and Eurofins. Formatting,transcribing field collection information, performingQA/QC review, and uploading field and analyticalresults to SFEI's RDC database and replicating toCEDEN. Expected to be complete by June 15, 2017.

3 Delta RMP (FY15/16) Pathogens Study - Year 2 Quality Assurance Report onYear 2 Pathogens Data

Don Yee 07/31/17 QAO report. Funded from Data Managementbudget.

4 Delta RMP (FY16/17) Governance Financial Subcommittee reportand conference call

Philip Trowbridge 01/05/17 Complete

5 Delta RMP (FY16/17) Governance Steering Committee Meeting #3and Summary


6 Delta RMP (FY16/17) Nutrients Synthesis 7A1.1 Synthesis Report -Additional data analyses

Thomas Jabusch 01/31/17 Complete

7 Delta RMP (FY16/17) Program Management FY17/18 Annual Workplan andBudget

Philip Trowbridge 02/10/17 Complete Draft for Finance Subcommittee sent 4/19/17. Finalby 6/30/16.

8

Delta RMP (FY16/17) Program Management Updated Monitoring Design Philip Trowbridge 02/15/17 Complete Deliverable not relevant for this fiscal year. Followingthe External Review, the Monitoring Design isexpected to need a major revision, which is morethan was planned for FY16/17. Minor revisions, suchas updating the target analyte lists, would be awaste of effort at this point. The update to theMonitoring Design will have its own budget line forFY17/18.

9Delta RMP (FY16/17) Nutrients Synthesis 7A1.3 Synthesis Report -

Prepare synthesis reportThomas Jabusch 02/28/17 Draft report has been distributed to the Nutrients

Subcommittee, which will be reviewing it at ameeting in August.

10 Delta RMP (FY16/17) Governance TAC Meeting #3 and Summary Thomas Jabusch 03/15/17 Complete

11Delta RMP (FY16/17) Nutrients Synthesis 7B2.3 Modeling and Synthesis

of Modeling Results - Runsimulations

Marianne Guerin 04/30/17 Complete By 4/30/16: Final model simulation results andoutput

12 Delta RMP (FY16/17) Nutrients Synthesis 7B2.4 Nutrients - Analyze andsynthesize model output data

Thomas Jabusch 05/04/17 Complete This analysis has been completed and incorporatedin the draft Synthesis Report.

13 Delta RMP (FY16/17) Governance Steering Committee Meeting #4and Summary

Matthew Heberger 05/05/17 Complete

14Delta RMP (FY16/17) Nutrients Synthesis 7C3.1 Nutrients- Statistical

ModelingThomas Jabusch 05/31/17 We are cooperating with Marcus Beck of USEPA

Office of Research and Development, who hassubmitted a manuscript with his analysis.

15 Delta RMP (FY16/17) Governance TAC Meeting #4 and Summary Matthew Heberger 06/14/17 Complete

Page 1 of 2


Project Primary Deliverable Assigned To Due Date Status Comments

16Delta RMP (FY16/17) Quality Assurance QAPP Update Thomas Jabusch 06/14/17 ASC staff is working with scientists at USGS and

Moss Landing to update the relevant sections of theQAPP, and we expect it to be completed before thefirst samples are collected this fall.

17 Delta RMP (FY16/17) Communications Technical Workshop / summarymemorandum of findings

Philip Trowbridge 06/30/17 Complete SC decided not to hold a technical workshop inFY16/17.

18 Delta RMP (FY16/17) CUP Monitoring 6. Field Sampling Report forFY16/17 CUP Monitoring

Philip Trowbridge 09/29/17

19 Delta RMP (FY16/17) CUP Monitoring 6. Data Management ofFY16/17 CUP Data

Amy Franz 12/31/17

20 Delta RMP (FY16/17) CUP Monitoring 6. Quality Assurance Report forFY16/17 CUP Monitoring

Don Yee 12/31/17

21 Delta RMP (FY16/17) CUP Monitoring 6. Permit Compliance Data forILRP

Amy Franz 02/01/18

22 Delta RMP (FY16/17) CUP Monitoring 6. Annual Monitoring Report forFY16/17 CUP Monitoring

Thomas Jabusch 02/28/18

23Delta RMP (FY16/17) Mercury 8. Mercury YR1 report

summarizing fish and wateranalyses

Thomas Jabusch 12/03/18

Page 2 of 2


Delta RMP Action Items Stoplight Report

Key to Status Colors:Green indicates greater than 90 days until the deliverable is due.Yellow indicates a deliverable is due within 90 days.Red indicates a deliverable that is overdue.

Primary Meeting Date Deliverable Assigned To Due Date Status Comments

1 SC Action Items 5/3/2017 05/03/17 Finalize the 1/26/2017 SC Meeting Summary and post tothe program website


2 SC Action Items 5/3/2017 05/03/17 Determine the date and location for the Fall 2017 SteeringCommittee meeting and send invitation to the SC

Matthew Heberger 05/25/17 Complete Set for Oct 24

3 SC Action Items 5/3/2017 05/03/17 Update the Financial Memo with minor edits Matthew Heberger 05/11/17 Complete

4 SC Action Items 5/3/2017 05/03/17 Send out revised draft Fact Sheet to the SC to review withdeadline for comments


5SC Action Items 5/3/2017 05/03/17 Finalize minor portions of the FY17/18 Workplan that

require changes in response to input received at themeeting and the decision of the Steering Committee

Matthew Heberger 05/15/17 Complete Pesticides question stilloutstanding.

6

SC Action Items 5/3/2017 05/03/17 Present the SC with information from the TAC related tothe pesticides proposals: TAC meeting summary,pros/cons of the two approaches, slides showing how datafrom the proposed approaches would be interpreted toanswer management questions, and how the costs of theDelta RMP might change with external funding for certainaspects of the projects

Matthew Heberger 07/21/17 Complete The TAC requested additionalguidance on how to evaluatecompeting proposals, and hasbegun a process for developingthis, with the approval of SC co-chairs.

7SC Action Items 5/3/2017 05/03/17 Prepare a revised scope and budget for the CUP/Toxicity

Year 1-2 Interpretative Report that includes synthesis ofreadily available information in the Delta, not just DeltaRMP data


8SC Action Items 5/3/2017 05/03/17 Regarding the Chlorophyll-a Intercalibration Study for

FY17/18, provide Gregg Gearheart with the specificsabout how partner agencies can participate


9 TAC Action Items from3/14/2017

03/14/17 Reserve meeting room for 9/21 TAC meeting; send emailinvitation


10TAC Action Items from3/14/2017

03/14/17 Follow up with SFWCA and SWAMP regardingcontribution matching funds to support the chlorophyllsensor intercalibration effort


11

TAC Action Items from3/14/2017

03/14/17 Look into whether a Delta RMP HABs monitoring projectwould be eligible for Water Board grant funding

Thomas Jabusch 03/31/17 Complete Talked to R. Breuer: Answer:Probably not at this point. Verylimited funding allocated toanother project for Deltasatellite surveillance andresponse. Another complicationis the closing of WPCL. There iscurrently no lab to do theanalyses.


03/14/17 Revise Pesticides proposal 1 to include only one site,Sacramento River at Hood

Debra Denton 03/31/17 Complete

13


03/14/17 Revise pesticide proposal 2A with the trends option for alonger list of pesticides from the DPR model (removeother options) and add draft site selection criteria. Makesure the planning budget is sufficient for 3 meetingsbetween July 1 and September 30


Page 1 of 5



14


03/14/17 In nutrients proposal package, increase the funding listedfor FY18/19 for the chlorophyll intercalibration study toindicate that we are embarking on a multi-year effort andlist other likely collaborators: USGS, SWAMP, DWR,NMS, Bay RMP, SFCWA


15


03/14/17 Prepare high-level summary of TAC-recommendedproposals for nutrients, Hg, and pesticides. To include thefollowing topics: 1) Management Drivers Addressed, 2)Assessment Questions Answered, 3) External ReviewComments Addressed, 4) Data Quality Objectives/NullHypothesis

Thomas Jabusch 04/15/17 Complete Add abstracts to each proposalwith this information.


03/14/17 Prepare memo on power analysis for Pesticide Proposal 2to share with interested TAC members, including caveatsrelated to using a priori estimates of variance


17


03/14/17 Schedule a pesticide subcommittee meeting for the 2ndweek of April to discuss: data evaluation process andQAPP for Proposal 1, site selection criteria for Proposal 2,target analytes for Proposal 2, bullets on pros/cons of TACrecommendation to SC



03/14/17 Ask Regional Board staff to figure out if dropping PesticideProposal 3 will reduce the total revenue for FY17/18(because Ag coalitions may reduce their contribution).



03/14/17 Send draft CUP report to TAC as a Word document Thomas Jabusch 03/17/17 Complete


03/14/17 Schedule a webinar to present and discuss the CurrentUse Pesticides draft report


21


03/14/17 Schedule a webinar to present CD3 visualization, datadownload and metadata

Matthew Heberger 04/15/17 We have decided to move thisto July so that it can be includedin the FY17/18 budget. (Thiswas requested by participants,but not included in priorbudgets.)

22 SC Action Items 1/26/2017 01/26/17 Finalize the 10/18/16 Meeting Summary and post to thewebsite


23 SC Action Items 1/26/2017 01/26/17 Determine the location for the 7/28/17 meeting and sendan invitation to the SC


24

SC Action Items 1/26/2017 01/26/17 Confirm whether Delta RMP measurement methods formercury and ancillary parameters are compatible withother programs, to ensure that the data we collect can bereadily combined with data collected by others.

Thomas Jabusch 02/28/17 Complete Thomas has talked to USGSand MLML and confirmed thatthe data collection and analysismethods are the same, andthere is no concern withcomparing and combiningmercury data.

25SC Action Items 1/26/2017 01/26/17 Add an agenda for the next SC Meeting on the

Communications Plan and access topreliminary/provisional data. Use the technicalpowerpoints presented as a case study.

Philip Trowbridge 04/30/17 Complete Topic added to list of items fornext SC meeting.

26

SC Action Items 1/26/2017 01/26/17 ASC to discuss with State Board (Greg Gearheart andJanis Cooke) on developing options for HABs monitoring.Questions include: where does the Delta RMP fit in, howmight we complement other programs, what kind ofoptions are there for projects in the FY17/18 budget orSEP funds? ASC to work with Greg Gearheart (StateBoard) on this.


27 SC Action Items 1/26/2017 01/26/17 Nutrients subcommittee to discuss HABs at a futuremeeting, and to come up with options to present to the SC


Page 2 of 5



28SC Action Items 1/26/2017 01/26/17 Organize a debrief meeting with State Board staff, USGS,

and ASC to develop lessons learned which might makethe CEDEN upload easier next time.

Matthew Heberger 02/28/17 Complete Meeting is scheduled for 3/6/17.

29

SC Action Items 1/26/2017 01/26/17 ASC will look into hiring administrative staff to performcertain roles, such as invoicing, taking meeting notes.

Matthew Heberger 02/28/17 Complete We have contacted Ms. DaphneOrzalli, who has confirmed herinterest and given us a quote forprofessional services at$40/hour. The financecommittee will discuss the prosand cons at their next meeting.

30

SC Action Items 1/26/2017 01/26/17 Beginning July 2017, all financials will be reported forcurrent fiscal year only. Remaining funds from prior yearswill be rolled over to the current year.

Matthew Heberger 07/31/17 Complete We have looked into this issueand discussed it with ouraccountant and financialmanager and concluded we canmake a seamless transitionwithout any issues. Frameworkpresented to FinanceSubcommittee on 4/25/2017,and approved.

31

SC Action Items 1/26/2017 01/26/17 Prepare a memo for the next SC meeting with options forsetting fees with pros and cons

Philip Trowbridge 04/30/17 Complete Slides discussing the optionsand preferred alternative wereprepared for the May 3 meetingbut the discussion was tabledand will be presented on July28.

32SC Action Items 1/26/2017 01/26/17 Create a 1- to 2-page factsheet about Delta RMP to help

with fundraising. Describe the purpose, accomplishments,and benefits.

Matthew Heberger 03/31/17 Complete Draft factsheet to be presentedat the May 3 SteeringCommittee meeting.

33SC Action Items 1/26/2017 01/26/17 Convene a meeting of the Revenue Subcommittee. Val Connor 04/30/17 Complete The Revenue Committee has

met and is planning futuremeetings.

34 SC Action Items 1/26/2017 01/26/17 Send a PDF of the nutrients presentations and links to the Matthew Heberger 02/01/17 Complete

35

SC Action Items 1/26/2017 01/26/17 Revise the response to the External Review Committee.Committee members to submit proposed language toASC. Following revisions, ASC will re-send the responseto the SC showing the edits in track changes. SCmembers will have one week to respond. If no commentsare received, the letter will be finalized and sent to thereviewers.


36 SC Action Items 1/26/2017 01/26/17 Schedule a meeting between Planning Committee and theIndependent Reviewers for March.

Yumiko Henneberry 02/10/17 Complete

37

SC Action Items 1/26/2017 01/26/17 Develop new text for Attachment 3 (the flowchart) to bediscussed at the fall SC-TAC meeting.

Matthew Heberger 09/30/17 At the Jan 26, 2017 meeting, itwas discussed that theflowchart had served a usefulpurpose at the beginning of theprogram, allowing dischargersand regulators to come to acommon understanding of howdata collected by the programwould (and would not) be used.However, it no longer reflectscurrent policy or procedures.Patrick thought it should bereplaced with a coupleparagraphs.

38 SC Action Items 1/26/2017 01/26/17 Accept approved edits and post new Charter to website. Matthew Heberger 02/28/17 Complete

39SC Action Items 1/26/2017 01/26/17 Put on the agenda for a future SC meeting: How we will

be interacting with the Delta Science Program, especiallyas it regards the findings of the recent report State of Bay-Delta Science, 2016, which concerns us directly.

Philip Trowbridge 02/01/17 Complete Item added to agenda itemparking lot.

Page 3 of 5



40 SC Action Items 1/26/2017 01/26/17 Put on the agenda for a future SC meeting: CECworkshop and State Board CEC Guidance.

Philip Trowbridge 02/01/17 Complete Item added to agenda itemparking lot.


12/13/16 Revise 9/20/16 meeting summary Thomas Jabusch 01/18/17 Complete


12/13/16 On the matrix of management drivers and assessmentquestions, use underline or text color to indicate thequestions currently being addressed by the Delta RMP



12/13/16 Schedule and prepare materials/maps for a discussionabout changes in SPoT sampling stations andcoordination of Delta RMP with SPoT, STORMS, and MS4monitoring for the 1/25 Pesticide Subcommittee meeting



12/13/16 Add “Technical Subcommittee Updates” as a standingitem on the TAC agenda and prepare a running tableshowing the samples that have been collected and thosethat are scheduled



12/13/16 Provide reference for Test of Statistical Significance andedits on response to TIE question

Debra Denton 12/16/16 Complete


12/13/16 Add an introductory paragraph and reformat the pathogenresponses

Brian Lauerson 12/22/16 Complete

47


12/13/16 Draft a cover letter that a) will summarize the main themesand concepts of the responses, b) expresses acommitment to making changes and addressing theissues that have been identified, and c) explains what typeof input is being sought for improving the program



12/13/16 Send the revised draft response letter to the PlanningSubcommittee and cc the TAC



12/13/16 Prepare a table for the Finance Subcommittee showingthe different roles and responsibilities of ASC and the TACco-Chairs


50

SC Action Items 10/18/2016 10/18/16 Schedule call to discuss flowchart Selina Cole 01/26/17 Complete This group would includeRegional Board staff (AdamLaputz), State Board staff (GregGearheart, Rich Breuer),USEPA (Debra Denton), andrepresentatives of POTWs(Debbie Webster), stormwater(Karen Ashby), and agriculture(Bruce Houdesheldt asplaceholder pending follow-updiscussion within the group).

51SC Action Items 10/18/2016 10/18/16 Work with the Coordinating Committee to establish when

terms will start and end for SC members, TAC members,and TAC co-chairs.

Philip Trowbridge 01/26/17 Complete Process memo prepared andpresented to TAC on 12/13/16.

52 SC Action Items 10/18/2016 10/18/16 Schedule a SC agenda item to discuss whether the TACshould continue to have two appointed co-chairs


53 SC Action Items 10/18/2016 10/18/16 Distribute Word version of the SC-approved Charterdocument to the TAC


54 SC Action Items 10/18/2016 10/18/16 Send additional specific changes and edits to the charterto Phil Trowbridge

TAC members 11/18/16 Complete Comments were received fromCVCWA.

55 SC Action Items 10/18/2016 10/18/16 Bring Charter with additional edits to the SC for approval Philip Trowbridge 01/26/17 Complete

56SC Action Items 10/18/2016 10/18/16 Develop a matrix that shows the intersect between the 3

major drivers (NRP, Pyrethroids TMDL, MeHg TMDL) andthe Delta RMP assessment questions


57 SC Action Items 10/18/2016 10/18/16 Look into “pooling” multiple settlements into one largerSupplemental Environmental Project

Patrick Morris 01/26/17 Complete Will be discussed at SCmeeting.

Page 4 of 5



58 SC Action Items 10/18/2016 10/18/16 Send comments on USGS report to Joe Domagalski Steering Committee 11/01/16 Complete Comment period expiredwithout any comments received.


09/20/16 Send Nutrient Sensor Synthesis Report includingreconciled comments to TAC and SC

Joe Domagalski 10/11/16 Complete


09/20/16 Modify the slides for the proposed process for pesticideprioritization before including them in the Oct 18 SC/TACmeeting agenda package or sending them to thePesticides Subcommittee

Stephen McCord 10/04/16 Complete


09/20/16 Send Doodle poll for first Pesticides SubcommitteeMeeting



09/20/16 Add a cover page to the toxicity report that explains how itfits into the overall reporting plan

Thomas Jabusch 12/06/16 Complete This update has been notedand will be completed when theFY15/16 CUP Report isformatted.


09/20/16 Send comments on management drivers table andSection 7B (TAC) of the approved Delta RMP Charter toPhil Trowbridge

TAC members 10/04/16 Complete


09/20/16 Prepare slides about the TAC roles and responsibilities inthe Charter and share them with the TAC for reviewbefore the October 18 meeting

Stephen McCord 10/17/16 Complete

65 SC Action Items 07/20/2016 07/20/16 Send an invite to SC for January 26, 2017 meeting Meg Sedlak 09/01/16 Complete

66SC Action Items 07/20/2016 07/20/16 Include page numbers in the agenda indicating location of

agenda items, add blank pages between items in theagenda package.

Meg Sedlak 10/03/16 Complete

67SC Action Items 07/20/2016 07/20/16 Accept Charter track changes sent to SC and incorporate

language modifications requested. Place final version ingoogle drive under foundational documents.


68 SC Action Items 07/20/2016 07/20/16 Send TAC the final version of the Charter before the10/18/16 meeting.


69

SC Action Items 07/20/2016 07/20/16 ASC and Finance Subcommittee will meet to determine away to provide the level of information requested. ASC willprovide a cost estimate for any extra work associated withthe increased reporting.

Meg Sedlak 10/03/16 Complete This meeting took placeimmediately following the SCmeeting. For future financialreports, ASC will use the sameformat as was developed for theQ2 report but also add thehours billed by each staffmember for each task from theinvoices.

70 SC Action Items 07/20/2016 07/20/16 Send out Management Driver table to SC and TAC Meg Sedlak 09/30/16 Complete

71 SC Action Items 07/20/2016 07/20/16 Add an agenda item to the October 18th Joint meetingagenda to discuss TAC comments on the Charter.


72

SC Action Items 07/20/2016 07/20/16 Table for TAC roster needs to be updated to reflect thecomposition indicated in the charter (e.g. resourceagencies). Greg Gearheart and Jeff Stuart requested thatthey be added to the TAC mailing list as they seek to findTAC representatives.


73 SC Action Items 07/20/2016 07/20/16 Develop a list of SEP projects that can be discussed at theMYP meeting.

Adam Laputz 09/30/16 Complete

Page 5 of 5


delta rmp steering committee meeting july 28, 2017 10:00 am - … · 2017-07-20 · delta rmp...

Documents